As far as I know it is virtually imposible to fully reuse 3D geometry among diferent Solid Modeling systems. The reason is that the history tree, relationships and all this internal information that allows the program to manage the geometry is almost lost in the transfer.
The only exception I know is SolidDesigner, from CoCreate Software. It can read and fully modify any solid model (or even surfaces) coming from any other applications. Any change is possible, without any restriction, like if the model had been generated by itself.
The reason is that SolidDesigner is not a "history-based-parametric" modeler and can work directly on the solid geometry.
We have read a Pro/E model that had been saved in IGES and then modified complex fillets. But it can read direct native formats.

I would not say that it is virtually impossible to reuse geometry amoung different Solid Modeling packages. Solid Edge & Unigraphics claim that they can share model data, and who knows what will happen with EDS's purchase of SDRC & UGS. Also, PTC claims that it can do everything! It all comes down to the capabilites of the modeling kernel. My experiences have shown me that CoCreate's SolidDesigner with their ASIC Kernel is the best at being able to modify geometry from CAD packages, but is that what we really want to do?

Yes, there are many companies and technologies addressing the ability to convert MCAD A model to MCAD B. However, what company wants to give up it's Intellectual Property for the sake of collaboration? Collaboration is getting a BAD name; it's not about converting then sharing files with everyone. It should be about the ability to access engineering and design data 7/24/365 by spawning processes remotely. Parker is a part of $21 Million project that is trying to demonstrate within a multi-level supplier base and a heterogeneous MCAD environment you may collaborate. I feel that this is a paradigm shift for collaboration, "To avoid Data Translation Errors, Avoid Data Translation." Applications such as solid modelers should be able to be accessed remotely so to extract whatever engineering data you may need. In addition, if you work within the FIPER Environment, you will be able to see "ghost" geometry (A facade with an intelligent link back to the original MCAD data.) Hence, this will allow OEM's and Vendors to check "form fit and function" and work happily-ever-after!

For those of you serious about this subject, check out a company by the name of Proficiency. I am no longer employed there, but they are doing exactly what you are talking about...CadA to CadB to CadC to CadD to CadE translations are possible by extracting design features and parameters into a common data format that they call UPR (Universal Part Representation) When the data can be written TO this format, the opposite is true, it can be written FROM this format to a disparate Cad kernel. Check it out.

I agree with Tony. The only reason companies are pushing so hard to convert feature based translation is legacy data and being able to convert a user of X software to Y software. Having the ability to import, or ultimately open, and model and get it in your new CAD system exactly as it was drawn is a priceless selling point. People switching from Mechanical Desktop to Inventor don't want to have to re-draw all of their data, but rather open their model with the new system and ditch the old system. In a perfect world that would make sense but it poses many challenges when you are not an Autodesk product porting to another Autodesk product. File formats change with every new release because companies are adding new features and some file formats are proprietary which makes it even harder to ensure accuracy.

Most of the high end systems (i.e. CATIA, PTC) don't want us to have that ability. As long as it requires translations, we will never be "confident" of the data. Then there is the issue of functionality. Can System B support the data created in System A? I doubt this is going to happen any time soon. The issue at risk is the economic life of several companies. Perhaps if 2 (say Dassault and EDS) capture the market, maybe then.

With the present trend of the mergers that are going on and the urgency on behalf of the companies to understand that interoperability is a key feature that will sell the package more is in itself enough of a proof that if not completely there we are atleast headed in the right direction. The recent understanding between PTC and EDS on Interoperability is another step in that direction. A lot of advances are being done in this direction and wherein companies refuse to give in tecniques like OpenDWG are being setup.

This together with the currently undertaken projects by Dasaults, PTC, AutoDesk in CAD data translations will bring us closer to the goal. One important thing to note though is that no matter what we say or are currently capable of doing with the translated data it is still imperative that we achieve it as close to possible. Just for an example round about 75% of the drawings existing in the market (all kinds) are in .dwg (AutoCAD) format. One of the primary reasons why OpenDWG was set up.

Here at the US ARMY, National Automotive Center, we have a program called N-STEP which is investigating the use of STEP, ISO 10303 in moving from design into manufacturing. By including product data in STEP format in our technical data packages suppliers having STEP a enabled manufacturing process can save time and money in the manufacturing process making them more competitive. We would like to know how broad the use of STEP is in industry and would appreciate comments from those using STEP.

It is not possible to provide seamless integration, it is not just the issue of Geometry Kernel but also about how the features are created thorugh various operators esp Vsweep in Ideas will not have equivalent operator in Catia and likewise. What will you do with such features. If the company decides to go in Seamless integration, it means all the CAD softwares should provide same functionality.

What about tolerance? A body which is having free edges in Ideas may be shown as closed body in UG because of different Tolerance they are working at.

I say that it is a waste of time to look and aim to provide seamless integration. What is the use of such a technology. How many users and what cost???

May be some company can provide a level of seamless integrations between one or two CAD softwares and that too not 100%. They can't